Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2024

[Jeffrey LeBlanc, Deputy Clerk, Procedure, House of Commons]

As was alluded to, there are several jurisdictions that have codes to govern member-to-member behaviour, and I think the vast majority of them deliberately and explicitly exclude what goes on in the chamber and in committees. The goal in that, I think, is to protect the privileges of members in their deliberative functions and to ensure that any situations that arise in those forums are dealt with according to the procedures and the rules in those forums. There is a Speaker, who is responsible for ensuring decorum in the chamber; there is a chair, who's responsible for maintaining decorum in a committee; and there are processes by which the House can sanction misconduct, should it occur in those forums.

The vast majority of codes that other legislatures have adopted have deliberately carved that out with, I think, the fear of what.... Would members welcome, for example, outside investigation into what goes on during proceedings? I guess that's the question members have to decide on in considering that.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In terms of those boundaries and what those chairs within the House or committee have, do they have the proper tools already to do that job? Do they have the appropriate training to do that job? Is that something we need to work on as well?

[Jeffrey LeBlanc]

I think that would be a question for members to decide. There are, I think, certain standards of decorum that are expected and that are attempted to be enforced. Whether members think those standards are sufficiently high, I think, is a question for members to answer. Whether or not the sanctions available to the chairs or to the Speaker are sufficiently high, I think, is also a question members could consider.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Decorum is a pretty general and broad term, so again it comes from an individual's will to abide by those entirely and there would be no other option....

[Jeffrey LeBlanc]

I would say that, if members feel that stronger tools, sanctions or different processes are necessary, they would have to incorporate that into the rules, but as multiple Speakers have said in multiple rulings about decorum and language, it's impossible to achieve that, I think, only by enforcement. Members need to have the will to also govern themselves appropriately.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

As a workplace—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry, but that's the end of the time.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

That was a really fast three minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry.

Colleagues, just as a quick note before we go to the next line of questioning here, we're going to hit just right at five minutes. I'm going to suspend at that point. We will go to vote. Once folks are back, we're going to continue. We will have one more from the Liberal side and then an entire round subsequent to that, and that will bring us to the end of this morning's testimony.

With that, for five minutes, I turn to Ms. Rempel Garner.

Welcome to PROC.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Janse, has the House ever undertaken a legal analysis of what portions of various labour codes, be they provincial or federal, apply to Parliament or to the workplace of parliamentarians?

[Eric Janse]

It's a good question, Ms. Rempel Garner. I'm not aware of any, but maybe Michel has some details.

[Michel Bédard]

Until changes to the labour code in 2019, which came into force a year or two years later through what was known as Bill C-65, which made applicable amendments to what we call PESRA, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, prior to these amendments the health and safety provisions of the labour code were not applicable to Parliament as a workplace. That said, there were provisions and policies in place at the administration level, but there was no specific legal requirement except the general legal requirements of employers.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

What about provincial labour codes?

[Michel Bédard]

Provincial labour codes will not apply to federal entities. They are subject to federal legislation. That's why amendments were made to PESRA and then to the labour code to make it applicable to parliamentary employers. The provincial labour codes are not applicable.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

If someone, a parliamentarian, were to say that they were entitled to a safe workplace here, the federal or provincial labour codes would not apply, in that sense, outside of the amendments that were made in legislation in 2019. Is that correct?

[Michel Bédard]

The changes that were made to the legislation in 2019 made applicable part II of the Canada Labour Code almost in its entirety, with some minor adjustments, to Parliament as a workplace and to our parliamentary employers, including members.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

I have made a very purposeful choice in my career to not platform any of the harassment I've received, and I will continue that. I will say, because it's a matter of public record, that I think I was the first case of criminal harassment that was prosecuted on Twitter writ large.

Mr. Janse, your team here has talked about the fact that there are criminal laws regarding harassment. What services does your team offer to link parliamentarians with the appropriate legal services when instances of criminal harassment occur?

[Eric Janse]

It's very much a partnership, I would think. Our law clerk office is involved. The Sergeant-at-Arms office is involved. Our IT folks, who are in close contact with some of the cybersecurity institutions, are involved, as are police forces of jurisdiction and the Parliamentary Protective Service. There are a lot of players involved.

Pat, do you want to give a bit more detail?

[Patrick McDonell]

In a typical case, we'd be made aware of the complaint. The first contact is the RCMP. The second contact, with the RCMP, is the police force of jurisdiction. We reach out to them. The case is discussed. Often it's obvious that it is a criminal harassment case.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

At this point, though, it would be reactive in terms of your team making MPs aware of what to do in those circumstances. It's reactive right now. Is that correct?

[Patrick McDonell]

Yes, ma'am.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

Perhaps that's something the committee could consider as a recommendation.

I remember a time when a colleague of a different party gave a five-minute missive in the House of Commons about the fact that I had blocked them on Twitter. That was after they had sent a lot of junk my way.

Colleagues, with this 45 seconds, since I'm subbing in on this committee, I would just urge you to ensure, if there are recommendations, that they are made on legitimate grounds and not as a way to litigate partisanship. I would hope that whatever recommendations come out of this study, partisanship is removed and scoring partisan points is removed, because this is a really serious issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Colleagues, we will now suspend in order to deal with our voting responsibilities. We will come back shortly thereafter.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I call the meeting back to order.

We are going to resume our witness testimony.

I'll turn it over to Ms. Romanado, who has five minutes remaining in this round.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Through you, I'd like to ask the witnesses a couple of other questions.

We're not talking about privilege here when we're talking about closing the loophole on MP-to-MP harassment. Let me rephrase that. What I'm talking about is not having healthy debate in the chamber. I think we should absolutely have healthy debate in the chamber. I think we should absolutely be questioning policies, and we should absolutely be providing feedback to improve legislation. However, when it comes to civility in the House sometimes and when it comes to personal attacks, when that kind of behaviour then spills out into social media, so a member is refraining from going to the chamber or participating in debate, or is self-regulating what they say out of fear of all of that happening, we're into privilege.

Can you comment on that? The fact is that if we have members not going into the chamber or not participating in debate out of fear of what's going to come out on social media, in their emails or in phone calls to their constituency, we are now prohibiting MPs from participating, and that is a point of privilege.

Mr. Janse, can you elaborate on that a bit?